Camera Raw/Lightroom: Fuji X-Trans Support?

I appreciate that the support is better now than it was, but the reality is that Lightroom is still a long way behind other RAW developers, all of which are less well funded and with smaller teams working on the software.

Lightroom has been the leader in RAW processing an image cataloging as far back as I can recall; but with the Fuji X-Trans files many people I know are leaving Adobe Lightroom for one of the many other developers, all of which are producing far better results than Adobe Lightroom.

Iridient is very good, and this is a piece of software made by a single man.

My question is, if he can get it right, why can't Adobe? They have been leaders in innovation for many years but it seems in some areas now they are falling behind - I have never seen so many people leave a major developer for smaller independent ones, but to Fuji users (both enthusiasts and professionals) it's a pretty simple decision when you compare results.

So all I'd like to know is if my patience sticking with Lightroom is justified, and whether a solution is being worked on - or will always be worked on. Or is it a case that the users wanting such a change are not enough to support such work.

Having Fuji's algorithms is probably what lead to the current situation, unless Fuji is licensing the algorithms rather than giving them away, and maybe Adobe didn't want to pay the licensing fee. I do know that Fuji failed to give Adobe any help or warning originally and that is why their first set of conversions was so terrible, and I agree that while the current conversions are better, they aren't nearly as detailed as others seem to be able to do, although if you look at the other conversions, sometimes there is a bit of artifacting, for example in fine green grass, so they are not perfect, either.

The current Adobe demosaicking process for traditional Bayer sensor layout has bits of the noise-reduction and sharpening built into it, so merely swapping out Adobe algorithms for Fuji isn't going to make things work entirely, either.

Steve Sprengel are you an Adobe employee?
If not, we have nothing to discuss.

I already bought Iridient Developer and I am happy with it. Also I tried free software Dark Table and RawTherapee which works with x-trans files much better than Adobe Camera RAW or LightRoom.
5-7-9 years ago I could buy Photoshop as standalone program, now I have to subscribe to "photography plan" but I do not need such poor Lightroom. So, many Fuji users should pay for not working properly software. Why?

We were patient, and the only thing Adobe need to do is to say will this problem be fixed or not. Is it so difficult?

Let's keep things serious, eh? Photos is the last thing a photographer should use for processing. It should only be used for iCloud sharing, and iOS editing, at most. Also, I see zero difference in those two images, aside from the exposure.

Have you actually clicked on the photo? If you have and still can't see the difference you really do need glasses; I know that is often used a humorous quip but in this case it's a serious recommendation.

Not much to say that hasn't already been said. The problem for the most part, is that Adobe doesn't HAVE TO acknowledge anything. As far as user bases go, that of Fuji's, is minuscule when compared to that of other camera manufacturers whose sensors are of the Bayer type.

This means that they have a cash cow, regardless of whether or not Fuji users use LR/PS. They also know that they have us by the balls, since all the other options leave us feeling like we are using an UI made by Fisher Price on crack.

We basically have to deal with these crap results, until we basically no longer can.... And that time frame will be different for everyone, I suppose. Or, we use another application for the RAW processing, and then to right back into PS for further tweaking etc.. Long winded workflow of course, but I fail to see a better alternative, if we're being realistic.

Fuji isn't that small as to not be of any value to Adobe - it's growing and so is mirrorless; so it's a good opportunity for Adobe to show some reward to it's many loyal Nikon and Fuji professionals who are now migrating to mirrorless.

if Adobe were ignoring this problem due to percentage of users it's be very short sighted.

My guess is that they simply aren't competent enough to produce better results. It's not a question of time or money when RAW developers run by 1 man teams are producing better results than a company valued at 36 billion dollars.

Well, if my client know that I shared her picture, she will kill me. But I will do this nevertheless, because I still hope, that Adobe will improve the demozaic.
So the RAF can be downloaded here http://www.mediafire.com/download/rbl...

7-8% is better than I would have guessed. I think companies care about 7-8%. That isn't much different than the Mac's market share—a little low.

Adobe has put just enough effort into X-Trans demosaicing to make it good enough that they retain the majority of Fuji customers. None of them may be happy but Adobe gets their money anyway. It's a crappy way to treat customers but until there is more than fringe competition there is no market pressure to do anything differently. If Capture One were more reasonably priced that might make a difference.

So what's the message of adobe to their customers? If you don't use a nikon or canon system, then LR is the wrong raw converter for you? We don't want your money? You are not important enough? We are unable to render files like most of our competitors? We rather implement usles features, then improve the most important core feature?

If I (and I think most of customers like me too) switch to Capture One, Iridient Developer, Photo Ninja or every other raw converter, that renders the files much better, I will never switch back. Why? A switch is complex and much work. I have to learn to use the software and I have to organize my files again.
And most important: I learnd, that adobe don't care. Pay and shut up, or leave.
So I leave.

I think what you can take from the lack of comment from Adobe is basically "we don't give a sh!t". 10 months and no reply, no acknowledgement on what is an official Adobe to consumer forum speaks volumes. I can't think of any other brands where 100+ complaints would go unheeded for that length of time.

Personally, I have given up. I said I would give them until LR6 and I did.

I will continue to use LR5, the software I once paid for but will not be investing in Adobe products from here on in.

Much like their Creative Cloud service; Adobe have ZERO commercial interest in upgrading and improving their software because all the people that are tied in are forced to keep using it, regardless of features and bugs, because if those users stop paying their rental fee the software becomes deactivated. They have a constant revenue stream regardless of what software they develop.

Go back a couple of years and Adobe knew that unless they addressed bugs and improved their software nobody would upgrade, and no upgrades used to + no money so these little bugs were addressed. Not any more.

So, much like my standalone Creative Suite CS6, I plan on using Lightroom 5 for non-important work and will use one of the other RAW developers such as Capture 1 or Iridient for professional and print work - I have no intention of ever upgrading.

I was about to buy a Fuji system in order to switch from Sony in a week. I've red the thread and I'm feeling quite frustrated now. So I'm forced by Adobe (in a figurative sence) not to switch to Fuji. I did huge comparison work but such a dissapointment at the last moment. LR+PS workflow did well for me up to now as I get that Adobe does not want to follow essential suggestions for months.

a-ha-ha :) sensor is not so important, hands and head are much more important. And I am working for 14 month with Fuji X-T1 and magazines, catalogue clients and advertizing agencies still pay me, not looking that I come to shot with small camera, not big full frame.
Moreover, I have very good jpegs strait out of camera and very often my clients ask and take jpegs. So I am not waisting too much time with postproduction.

I can recover Highlights in Iridient better than in Lightroom. But I'm sure it depends on way/style of shooting. Moreover Iridient has 2 tools: Extreme highlight recovery, which has 7 sub-menus and Highlights (neighbourhood adaptive).

You are right I'm not shooting landscapes. But I'm shooting fashion defile and also I'm shooting reportage. And jpegs were accepted by chief editors. And I want to say, that Iridient works great, and it was created by ONE person! Adobe has a lot of employees and for more than 10 month did nothing.

I sold my X-T1 because of this, such a shame as it was a lovely camera, but I bought it primarily for landscape use and the awful 'plasticky' demosaicing in LR killed it for that. I tried other developers on trial, some were nice, but ultimately my whole workflow and catalog is based around Lightroom, and I'm used to it, and I already own it.

So, I'm NOT going to say I'll move to another raw converter, when the one I already own should do this fundamental task perfectly well. I'm going to add another request Adobe actually do something about it. I'd love to move back to a Fuji body and glass. If others, including solo bedroom developers can do it perfectly well, there is clearly ﻿no excuse﻿.

Come on Adobe, you have the resources, what's the sense in making a lot of people very unhappy, and very vocal, when you could make them very contented by simply fixing this? At least make an official announcement of progress, especially now that LR6 has shown no improvement in this area, as many had hoped.

Why would Adobe lift a fat finger to do anything when people are willing to sell their camera bodies to accommodate Adobe's laziness? I'm not criticizing your decision, James, but your post doesn't do much to further the cause. Then again, there isn't much to suggest Adobe cares about any of its users. Their rental scheme seems to have worked so what motivation do they have to fix anything.

I've decided to buy a Fuji body in spite of known LR's deficiency and I'm going to buy the Iridient Developer for it. I'm quite happy with PS as an edit/retouche software but if I would know a comparable software to PS, I could also say bye-bye to Adobe...

I agree with you t.linn. I am not willing to give up my X-T1. And I don't think I should have to.

On the other hand, I fail to see what unsubscribing to Adobe will accomplish. If Fuji's market share is less than 7%, I seriously doubt that our defection will make much of a difference. How many of these 7% actually care that much about it. Lots of JPG shooters in the group, I am sure.

It is Fuji that will suffer I believe. Already, a number of my colleagues have decided NOT to purchase an X-T1 because of the problem.

And although I am more than frustrated with Adobe about this, I wonder what, if anything Fuji is doing about it. I am sure they have more clout than any of us.

Yes, I believe your assessment is exactly correct. And to be clear, I wasn't suggesting unsubscribing from Adobe in my last comment—though that is my advice to anyone who doesn't want to willingly put themselves in a position of having to pay Adobe a monthly fee for the rest of their life to have editing access to their images. My advice is CS6 and a perpetual license of LR until this is no longer a viable option. At that point I am hopeful that some other company will have stepped in to offer some competition. It's not like Adobe is actually advancing the state of the art with their relatively infrequent CC releases. PS is a relatively stationary target.

+1
In general, the trend is that a lot of non professionals, hobbyists and semi-pro photographers (pros also, but not so many) understood, that DSLR is big and heavy and do not have the "magic" button "masterpiece". And this people switch to mirrorless, and mostly to Fuji. So in one or two years this 7-8% will increase, but Adobe will not get them as customers. Iridient, Capture One will get new customers.

I payed for Iridient $99 and this is not a small amount of money, but I vote for client-oriented developer.

Oddly, having commented here the other day, I ended up inadvertently discussing this yesterday with a pro photographer who uses Fuji system - in fact I was cheating to him about something else but we got onto the subject. I won't mention names, because I didn't ask his approval to post what he said here.

Now, he apparently used to work for Fuji, and said they are notoriously, almost ridiculously, tight lipped about their Intellectual Property. He claimed to have got them and Adobe 'round the same table' a while back, which is why there was a small step up in processing quality.

My point (or rather, his point) is that we may need to be putting pressure on Fuji to be more forthcoming with Adobe about how to de mosaic x-teams files properly, and not only on Fuji themselves. He told me that recently another friend of his (another pro) had a photo which was processed by a top lab here, then, for some reason, by Fuji themselves in Japan. The difference in the final prints was quite substantial, to the extent they asked what on earth Fuji were able to do to the file that they couldn't. Essentially, he said that the Fuji print was 'everything we're all wanting', which I took to mean it didn't have the artefacts we're all concerned with.

I have no reason to suspect the guy is making it up, as I say, we only wandered on to the subject in the middle of another conversation, but it may be worth everyone pressuring Fuji more. If they really are being so protective of their x-trams IP it's damaging the output quality of the files it claims to improve, their users' experience, and even, in cases like myself, losing customers, that really is crazy. That said, I still think Adobe could at least respond to our concerns - how hard would it be, if the above is indeed true, for them to simply say that it's out of their hands, and to approach Fuji for a fix, for example?

James, all you said sounds strange at least. If I process x-trans RAW in Iridient Developer or Capture One, or in Darktable I will get perfect demosaic. So why they can but Adobe can't?
Moreover I know from a guy from Fujifilm-Russia, that Fuji gave to Adobe all necessary data, but the only thing Adobe did is included film profiles to LR and ACR.

Aleksei, you may well be right, I can't vouch for the veracity of any of it, just passing on what I heard.

Are you getting a perfect demoniac in C1? I tried it a while back and found it much better in terms of colour profiling and other areas, but only mildly better at demosaicing. It's not as strong as LR in other areas, although the new colour correction workflow does look very nice!

Never heard of Darktable, might look it up, although LR handles my current E-M1 files just fine so I have little incentive to move developers right now.

I bought and use right now Iridient Developer (you may scroll up and see my comparison with LR 5 and 6). Capture One I tried couple of times, but this software demands to deep study and I don't have free time to learn one mor RAW-processing software (because I shoot 25-30 hours a week and need to give the decent result to my clients).
Darktable is free and open-source software. It works great, especially if you chose 5-step demosaic. But it is also demands some time to study it. I know that in net there are blogs where it is explained, how to work with Darktable. I can't give you the link because I speak Russian and I know about one blog which is written in Russian. But I am sure you manage to find. Moreover, Darktable is for Win, Mac and Linux. A friend of mine who is very successful stocker works in Darktable and he says that demosaic is perfect for stock demands.

So, Adobe can't - other manufacturers can. What does it mean? In my opinion, Adobe has got a "star-in-the-forehead" disease and don't give a damn on its clients.

Sorry James, but Adobe not working with Fuji is more of an Issue for Fuji than it is for Adobe - they stand to lose far more.

I have heard from many sources that Fuji have given Adobe all the algorythms and data needed, but Adobe don't feel there is benefit in pooling resources into this for Fuji users (instead they make new features like iPhoto 1990 face detection).

And even if that was the case it wouldn't explain why all the other RAW developers are producing better results than Adobe, which really is the issue here.

Adobe does and OK job in the main, but it's obviously not up to the standard of some far smaller softwares written by lone people in bedrooms; and that really is the crux of the problem - Fuji Lightroom users simply want an explanation why this is, or even some comment saying they don't care for Fuji users.

But Adobe just continually fail to respond to this which just exaggerates the issue for consumers, for Fuji and for Adobe.

It is very unlikely Adobe would make negative comments about Fuji or toward Fuji-camera-owners or give hints about their attitude toward revamping Fuji processing--such things could get them into legal trouble as well as affect their stock price.

Adobe is still getting 100,000+ new CC subscribers each month. When improving Fuji support has higher marketing potential for increasing LR's contribution to those CC subscribers than adding new features like facial recognition or a touch-friendly interface maybe it'll be done, right?

I think Adobe has to be careful about using a third-party demosaicking solution like Darktable or dcraw, even if it's free, because at some point it might not be free and then Adobe would owe someone lots of money for using it and if it's open then Adobe would be expected to contribute their improvements which they may not want to do. It's far safer to buy someone else's intellectual property or develop in house, and so far neither of those options have provided superior quality.

There is no legal reason why they can't comment on their own software. They have the option of simply acknowledging the many users complaining about the issue and have a choice whether they see this as something that needs improving, or whether they see it as something which they are unable or unwilling to focus on.